> From: Brad Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> But this is business, and when the question is > "what is best for WotC" I can't imagine how forcing the > creation of dozens of divergent descriptions for the same > critter helps sell copies of the MM. "What is best for WotC" is to ignore the issue until such time as the company believes it is in it's interest to take action to protect it's assets. That day might never come. On the other hand, if, say, MacFarlane Toys did a deal to make action figures from D&D illustrations and insisted on using exclusive images, that day might come very quickly. Since copyright, unlike trademark, does not have to be defended, WotC can make whatever decisions it wishes about protecting it's copyrights to illustrations at a time of it's choosing. I guarantee that there are some people inside WotC who look at derivative artwork, look at the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on reconcepting the core D&D races, the immense number of hours spent by very talented illustratators doing that work, and the long days of debate and discussion that went into the overall brand framework within which that work was done, and want to know why WotC doesn't act immediately to enforce those rights, to stop those 3rd parties from gaining, essentially at no cost, the direct benefit for all that work, and frankly, I don't have much of an answer for them. Illustrations reside outside the scope of the SRD (and thus the OGL). They are not game rules, or materials that use those rules. Ryan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
